kelly__nashieda
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 14
Malcolm MacLaren, the British rock band manager/charlatan, once remarked that rock music:
... remained the only form of culture that youth - those most receptive to radical ideas, who hold the most potential for social action - cared about. For the young, everything flowed through rock'n'roll: fashion, slang, sexual attitudes, drug habits, and poses.
Realizing the financial potential behind these sociological traits, the astute MacLaren kept an eye on the rock music underground as a bell whether indicator for the British youth. It was here that MacLaren recognized the highly visible, wildly energetic and anti - social punk was the heir apparent for the youth of the U.K.. In order to capitalize on this new sound and evolving trend, he began promoting The Sex Pistols.
As a savvy businessman, MacLaren knew that in order to succeed, he and his proteges had to reach the largest number of pop culture participants in the most cost effective manner available. This required a paradoxical shift from the underground scene into the mainstream mass media. While their ploy was successful, success had its price. The deluge of manipulation and the waves of newly found fame forced on The Sex Pistols caused the original punk to become lost. In spite of placing punks on a world wide stage, success was the end of the quintessential punk and the beginning of punk as a constructed image.
An analysis of what punk was, in sociological terms, is rather more interesting than trying to determinewhat punk meant. This is because, as A.A. Gill of the London Times points out, punk was simply part of the "next" generations "fumbled attempts to get drunk, listen to the band, get laid and get the last bus home ..." (Gill 3). Gill implies that punks were merely adolescents doing what came naturally: "We did it because we had to, we were genetically programmed to be adolescent and, anyway, there wasn't anything else to do on Friday night." (Gill 3). He goes on to say that "the kids [were] all sadly the same: spotty, mumbling, sincere, confused but essentially likeable". Lester Bangs too, found that the British punks were "basically, if not manifestly gentle people" (DeBruijn 11). Following this line, being a punk meant nothing new. They were typical teenagers, playing guitar poorly with the volume cranked up.
Having made this claim, one must consider what the punk musicians were trying to say, and thus determine if there was there a sincere and unique source for their anger. This analysis presents a problem however, as the majority of the lyrics are indecipherable or non intelligible. The casual listener, for example, might gain that The Sex Pistols did not think too highly of the class structure perpetuated by the royal family in Britain. They felt there was not much of a future in the U.K. and that, rather than sitting around vacantly all day, stirring up a little anarchy might be fun for a change. The Clash adopted a more global approach, finding their angst in the uneven distribution of wealth, underhanded tactics of the police, and superpower politics. Elvis was a romantic punk. (Surely a contradiction of terms and thus the difficulty in placing his music). While loudly lamenting social crisis, the punks concerns were not new issues in terms of social reform. More so, punk rock lyrics reflected the mood of the nation during the 1980s': mirroring rather than created social crisis. "... the whole notion of Englishness had become a dirty word. ... England made the likes of Elvis Costello and the Pistols simply sick."(Landesman 23). Thus, the inherent social criticsm within punk was British rather than a unique element of that particular movement.
Punk did have a unique, distinguishing feature: a refined ability to shock. Anyone observing a group of punks moving through Leicester Square on a Friday night would steer well clear: these guys looked seriously strange. (The female punk presented a paradox: a hint of the feminine beneath the hardened exterior). The mohawks, leathers and safety pins were a radical departure from the glamour rock of the previous decade. When situated beside the staid British working class and grannies with their push carts, the punks of London created an immediate sensation. But one must recognize that the desire to be different can be applied to any previous teen generations. It was the retribution that followed punk that exceeded the norm.
It can be argued that the public reaction against punk began in 1976 when Malcolm MacLaren arranged for the new voice of the young to be interviewed live on the BBC. Here, The Sex Pistols; Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious et al, unleashed their foul mouthed, in-your-face opinions on a still largely unsuspecting British public. The British education minister of the 1970s' subsequently said The Sex Pistols were "a symptom of the way society is declining. It could have a shocking effect on young people." and the Arts Chairman of Greater London said "I will do everything in my power to stop them appearing here again." (DeBruijn 11). Comments such as these elevated punk to ridiculous extremes and in retrospect, this hard line approach was nonsense. As Gill observed, "It [was] the parents, teacher, vicars and policemen who [were] frothingly in need of drugs and counselling." (Gill 3).
Predictable, the condemnation administered to punk had the opposite effect of its intent and punk merely grew. Their visibility was perpetuated by the shock it created and subsequently, shock became the catalyst for further growth. Furthermore, it was an easy, accessible and inexpensive formula to follow; dress weird and adopt an "eat-your-elders mentality. ... a feral quality, one that operat[es] in constant opposition." (Wilson 61).
To summarize, the punk movement was the same, time-tried rejection of existing rules and the rowdy voice of change: a statement of discontent through an inarticulate voicing of problems: loud, if not clear, shocking and forthright. Trying to read any more into punk was as pointless and futile as making sense of adolescence. As Gill concludes: "When did being an adolescent ever mean anything?". Johnny Rotten contended "It's all about being yourself. Be a ... individual" (Woodward 2) but as Gill notes, Rotten's attempt to "encapsulate 'what it all meant' was faintly, charmingly, ridiculous." Punk was a sensational new act to be sure, but basically, it was an adolescent phase with rampant publicity. There were no higher plans or decisions to create "utopian heres[ies]" (Landesman). The manifestos designed to destroy the youth of Britain never existed.
A question still remains: why all the fuss? Primarily, it was because the punk movement grew at an alarming rate, as if the flood gates had opened to release an army of anxious, eager and angry youths. However, it was reaction from the mainstream society that was even more unsettling. Punk had caused the British public to take a long overdue look at themselves through their youth. Clearly, they did not like what they saw. The bourgeois reaction ranged from rejection to denial and the youth responce was support or confrontation. Whatever the reaction, the British public were witnessing a sociological change and it was perceived that punks were indifferently leading the parade. It was this misconception which made the punk a valid, yet undesirable, member of society.
Even with strong public opinion working to bolster its counter-culture nature, the punk as a public figure was doomed. Ironically, the most damning blow was self inflicted: when the Sex Pistols were getting front page notices, newspapers were being bought. Punk became a media hit and, as a consequence, the accountants woke up. Steve Jones, formerly of The Sex Pistols discussed the reaction: "From that day on it was different. Before then, it was just music: the next day it was the media" (Woodward 2). With its popularity among the youth and headline visibility, pop culture corporations were eager to exploit punk for profit. In the hands of record company executives, punk was guided, directed and transformed. Eventually a gap was formed "between how pop culture understands punk and 'how punk really exists'" (Wilson 61). By the mid 1980s,' the punk became publicly acceptable. The punk became intelligent, artistic and fun. This became the constructed punk: a sterilized figure, a shadow of his mindless adolescent ancestor.
If promoters and record company executives thought they could capture the quintessential punk and drag him into the board rooms, they were sadly mistaken. It was as futile as trying to capture youth. It was not only impossible, it was stupid to even attempt. The first punk caught in the corporate snare was Johnny Rotten and he quickly died in captivity. Lamenting his capture in a statement at the end of the last Sex Pistols tour, he said "Have you ever felt you've been cheated?". Here he was pondering his own fate rather than those in the audience. Later he would form a band sarcastically named Public Image and wrote the title song which describes a bitter embrace of success seen through the eyes of the quintessential punk:
You never listen to the words that I say
You only see me by the clothes I wear ...
Or did the interest go so much deeper
It must have been the colour of my hair.
Two sides to ever story, somebody had to stop me
I'm not the same as when I began
Its not a game of monopoly
The Public Image, you got what you wanted
The Public Image belongs to me
My entrance, my own creation
My grand finale, my goodbye.
... remained the only form of culture that youth - those most receptive to radical ideas, who hold the most potential for social action - cared about. For the young, everything flowed through rock'n'roll: fashion, slang, sexual attitudes, drug habits, and poses.
Realizing the financial potential behind these sociological traits, the astute MacLaren kept an eye on the rock music underground as a bell whether indicator for the British youth. It was here that MacLaren recognized the highly visible, wildly energetic and anti - social punk was the heir apparent for the youth of the U.K.. In order to capitalize on this new sound and evolving trend, he began promoting The Sex Pistols.
As a savvy businessman, MacLaren knew that in order to succeed, he and his proteges had to reach the largest number of pop culture participants in the most cost effective manner available. This required a paradoxical shift from the underground scene into the mainstream mass media. While their ploy was successful, success had its price. The deluge of manipulation and the waves of newly found fame forced on The Sex Pistols caused the original punk to become lost. In spite of placing punks on a world wide stage, success was the end of the quintessential punk and the beginning of punk as a constructed image.
An analysis of what punk was, in sociological terms, is rather more interesting than trying to determinewhat punk meant. This is because, as A.A. Gill of the London Times points out, punk was simply part of the "next" generations "fumbled attempts to get drunk, listen to the band, get laid and get the last bus home ..." (Gill 3). Gill implies that punks were merely adolescents doing what came naturally: "We did it because we had to, we were genetically programmed to be adolescent and, anyway, there wasn't anything else to do on Friday night." (Gill 3). He goes on to say that "the kids [were] all sadly the same: spotty, mumbling, sincere, confused but essentially likeable". Lester Bangs too, found that the British punks were "basically, if not manifestly gentle people" (DeBruijn 11). Following this line, being a punk meant nothing new. They were typical teenagers, playing guitar poorly with the volume cranked up.
Having made this claim, one must consider what the punk musicians were trying to say, and thus determine if there was there a sincere and unique source for their anger. This analysis presents a problem however, as the majority of the lyrics are indecipherable or non intelligible. The casual listener, for example, might gain that The Sex Pistols did not think too highly of the class structure perpetuated by the royal family in Britain. They felt there was not much of a future in the U.K. and that, rather than sitting around vacantly all day, stirring up a little anarchy might be fun for a change. The Clash adopted a more global approach, finding their angst in the uneven distribution of wealth, underhanded tactics of the police, and superpower politics. Elvis was a romantic punk. (Surely a contradiction of terms and thus the difficulty in placing his music). While loudly lamenting social crisis, the punks concerns were not new issues in terms of social reform. More so, punk rock lyrics reflected the mood of the nation during the 1980s': mirroring rather than created social crisis. "... the whole notion of Englishness had become a dirty word. ... England made the likes of Elvis Costello and the Pistols simply sick."(Landesman 23). Thus, the inherent social criticsm within punk was British rather than a unique element of that particular movement.
Punk did have a unique, distinguishing feature: a refined ability to shock. Anyone observing a group of punks moving through Leicester Square on a Friday night would steer well clear: these guys looked seriously strange. (The female punk presented a paradox: a hint of the feminine beneath the hardened exterior). The mohawks, leathers and safety pins were a radical departure from the glamour rock of the previous decade. When situated beside the staid British working class and grannies with their push carts, the punks of London created an immediate sensation. But one must recognize that the desire to be different can be applied to any previous teen generations. It was the retribution that followed punk that exceeded the norm.
It can be argued that the public reaction against punk began in 1976 when Malcolm MacLaren arranged for the new voice of the young to be interviewed live on the BBC. Here, The Sex Pistols; Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious et al, unleashed their foul mouthed, in-your-face opinions on a still largely unsuspecting British public. The British education minister of the 1970s' subsequently said The Sex Pistols were "a symptom of the way society is declining. It could have a shocking effect on young people." and the Arts Chairman of Greater London said "I will do everything in my power to stop them appearing here again." (DeBruijn 11). Comments such as these elevated punk to ridiculous extremes and in retrospect, this hard line approach was nonsense. As Gill observed, "It [was] the parents, teacher, vicars and policemen who [were] frothingly in need of drugs and counselling." (Gill 3).
Predictable, the condemnation administered to punk had the opposite effect of its intent and punk merely grew. Their visibility was perpetuated by the shock it created and subsequently, shock became the catalyst for further growth. Furthermore, it was an easy, accessible and inexpensive formula to follow; dress weird and adopt an "eat-your-elders mentality. ... a feral quality, one that operat[es] in constant opposition." (Wilson 61).
To summarize, the punk movement was the same, time-tried rejection of existing rules and the rowdy voice of change: a statement of discontent through an inarticulate voicing of problems: loud, if not clear, shocking and forthright. Trying to read any more into punk was as pointless and futile as making sense of adolescence. As Gill concludes: "When did being an adolescent ever mean anything?". Johnny Rotten contended "It's all about being yourself. Be a ... individual" (Woodward 2) but as Gill notes, Rotten's attempt to "encapsulate 'what it all meant' was faintly, charmingly, ridiculous." Punk was a sensational new act to be sure, but basically, it was an adolescent phase with rampant publicity. There were no higher plans or decisions to create "utopian heres[ies]" (Landesman). The manifestos designed to destroy the youth of Britain never existed.
A question still remains: why all the fuss? Primarily, it was because the punk movement grew at an alarming rate, as if the flood gates had opened to release an army of anxious, eager and angry youths. However, it was reaction from the mainstream society that was even more unsettling. Punk had caused the British public to take a long overdue look at themselves through their youth. Clearly, they did not like what they saw. The bourgeois reaction ranged from rejection to denial and the youth responce was support or confrontation. Whatever the reaction, the British public were witnessing a sociological change and it was perceived that punks were indifferently leading the parade. It was this misconception which made the punk a valid, yet undesirable, member of society.
Even with strong public opinion working to bolster its counter-culture nature, the punk as a public figure was doomed. Ironically, the most damning blow was self inflicted: when the Sex Pistols were getting front page notices, newspapers were being bought. Punk became a media hit and, as a consequence, the accountants woke up. Steve Jones, formerly of The Sex Pistols discussed the reaction: "From that day on it was different. Before then, it was just music: the next day it was the media" (Woodward 2). With its popularity among the youth and headline visibility, pop culture corporations were eager to exploit punk for profit. In the hands of record company executives, punk was guided, directed and transformed. Eventually a gap was formed "between how pop culture understands punk and 'how punk really exists'" (Wilson 61). By the mid 1980s,' the punk became publicly acceptable. The punk became intelligent, artistic and fun. This became the constructed punk: a sterilized figure, a shadow of his mindless adolescent ancestor.
If promoters and record company executives thought they could capture the quintessential punk and drag him into the board rooms, they were sadly mistaken. It was as futile as trying to capture youth. It was not only impossible, it was stupid to even attempt. The first punk caught in the corporate snare was Johnny Rotten and he quickly died in captivity. Lamenting his capture in a statement at the end of the last Sex Pistols tour, he said "Have you ever felt you've been cheated?". Here he was pondering his own fate rather than those in the audience. Later he would form a band sarcastically named Public Image and wrote the title song which describes a bitter embrace of success seen through the eyes of the quintessential punk:
You never listen to the words that I say
You only see me by the clothes I wear ...
Or did the interest go so much deeper
It must have been the colour of my hair.
Two sides to ever story, somebody had to stop me
I'm not the same as when I began
Its not a game of monopoly
The Public Image, you got what you wanted
The Public Image belongs to me
My entrance, my own creation
My grand finale, my goodbye.
